I am making a scenario about Vietnam, and well I was wondering whether to make the NVA and the Vietcong seperate forces or keep them together as one. Did the United States ever try and invade North Vietnam? What useful information would you think I should put into my scenario?
I would say the NVA and Viet Cong should generally be treated as seperate. While the Vietcong was subordinate to the NVA and after Tet it steadily faded in importance, it had a different command structure and its own internal political structure. Moreover the Viet Cong was a essentially a guerilla force, whereas the NVA was a more traditional regular army with artillery and even some armor.
The U.S. never formally invaded North Vietnam ( though cross-border incursions and of course air attacks certainly weren’t unusual ), but the NVA eventually became the major combatant in South Vietnam and the war increasingly took on a more conventional feel ( with large NVA units facing off against U.S./ARVN forces on a traditional front ).
What sort of scenario are you building and for what? This may be better suited for Cafe Society if you’re talking game design.
- Tamerlane
just on the american involvement during the late 60’s and 70’s, its a civ II scenario, just for general enjoyment, haha. I like the Idea of a protracted guerilla campaign, am currently working on the map design for the Afghan Soviet war as well.
Corrupt governments, isolated cities, proped up regimes, you can’t beat warfare 
The NVA considered the Viet Cong to be less than their equals. After the war, the VC’s expected preferential political and professional appointments, but generally didn’t get them.
From my experience in Vietnam, Marine Corps 2/69 - 2/70, there were 2 rather distinct Viet Cong units. There was a much more formal organization that was largely decimated during the Tet offensive in early 1968. They were basically army units as the term is probaby typically thought of. My guess is they, in their prime, made up about a third or less of the VC. Their big shortcoming was that they had little but small arms, though they tended to prepare for things very well.
The VC that most people think of when they hear the term were much less organized and are the part of the two that I had the most experience with. They tended to use booby-traps a lot more as very little, other than setting them up, was required. They also tended to break and run pretty quick.
The NVA were a pretty touch bunch, if we let them set the place and time. But picking the time and place was probably were they put the bulk of their efforts, and they were good at it.
At times and places of our choosing, they were all three pretty much fucked.
Is there any maps of their bases in Cambodia and Laos that could be of help to me?
Was there any action of invasions by the VPA into the south by direction of the demilitarised zone and vice versa? And I mean this when the Americans were still actively involved.
In many senses, it must of been a pretty amazing war. What was the political and domestic situation of the South? Did they retain control of cities and villages or were they left to their own devices?
Is there any maps of American bases in South Vietnam?
Much regards,
Hard to find good maps online for that sort of thing ( and remember those bases tended to be mostly mobile and could be shifted - I don’t know if NV ever established many permanent multi-year basecamps as opposed to short-term staging areas and refuges ). This is semi-related ( sorry about the poor quality ):
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/mounted/chapter7.htm#m1
Well, the big NVA EasterOffensive of 1972 ( the largest series of battles in the war, outstripping even Tet ) was launched in part across the DMZ. The U.S. was actively disengaging at that point, but still had a very significant presense. You can do a search on various accounts - here’s one on the intelligence failures that allowed the NVA to achieve surprise:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1998-1/BAKERfnl.htm
It was in essence an oligarchic despotism ( you could probably say North Vietnam was as well, but of a different sort ). Politically it was fragile and plagued by the worst sort of petty ( and often not-so-petty ) corruption. While the northern government ( whatever its own despotic tendencies ) arose from a genuinely popular uprising and retained a great deal of popular revolutionary cachet, the South Vietnamese government was pretty much imposed from the top and never enjoyed more than mediocre popularity ( not that all of South Vietnam was pulling for the North by any means, but it is obvious Ho Chi Minh would have won the country-wide election that had been scheduled but never held - for just that reason, of course ). Consequently it was forced to wage a propaganda battle on its own soil in which it was never able to entirely gain the upper hand, something which its own internal flaws and instability just made all the harder.
Without the U.S. support it would never have survived long. After the U.S. it didn’t survive long.
They controlled the cities ( but they were porous, as Tet exposed ) and struggled to control the countryside, but mostly failed there. The Tet Offensive, though an awful ass-whupping for the Viet Cong/NVA in tactical terms, was arguably a strategic victory. Not just in terms of the well-known propaganda victory, but also militarily as it pulled most of the available mobile troops, both American and ARVN, out of the countryside and they were never able to re-establish the same level of presense they had before that ( the unexpected threat to the cities caused more units to be tied to urban areas in the aftermath ).
Ehhh…try this one, again not very clear:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/basedev/chapter10.htm#m1
- Tamerlane
Broken links Tamerlane
Which ones? They all work for me.
- Tamerlane
I don’t know why they’re broken but they don’t work.
The links all work for me, too.
Anyway, was the VC’s fondest dream to take over South Vietnam and immediately unify with the North, or did they want to set up their own country?
Dunno what to tell you Ryan - those links for me. Maybe a browser issue?
The VC was subordinate to the NV government, in fact they were part of it and basically constituted out of the “southern” ( not entirely, but significantly ) branch of the Viet Minh that had been fighting the French and took power in the north. Le Duan was the leader of the Viet Minh resistance in the south and he later took over the Viet Cong operations in the south from 1957, along with fellow southerners Nguyen Chi Thanh ( in charge in the south from 1959 and a rival of Giap ) and Le Duc Tho.
So there was never any argument that the goal was to merge Vietnam.
- Tamerlane
I would just like to pop in and say that this kind of discussion is one of the reasons I shelled out my $4.95. Thanks for explaining a complex issue so easily.